Inequalities in access to and outcomes of cardiac surgery in England: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics (2010-2019).

BACKGROUND: We aimed to characterise the variation in access to and outcomes of cardiac surgery for people in England. METHODS: We included people >18 years of age with hospital admission for ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and heart valve disease (HVD) between 2010 and 2019. Within these populations, we identified people who had coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and/or valve surgery, respectively. We fitted logistic regression models to examine the effects of age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation on having access to surgery and in-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality and hospital readmission. RESULTS: We included 292 140 people, of whom 28% were women, 11% were from an ethnic minority and 17% were from the most deprived areas. Across all types of surgery, one in five people are readmitted to hospital within 1 year, rising to almost one in four for valve surgery. Women, black people and people living in the most deprived areas were less likely to have access to surgery (CABG: 59%, 32% and 35% less likely; valve: 31%, 33% and 39% less likely, respectively) and more likely to die within 1 year of surgery (CABG: 24%, 85% and 18% more likely, respectively; valve: 19% (women) and 10% (people from most deprived areas) more likely). CONCLUSIONS: Female sex, black ethnicity and economic deprivation are independently associated with limited access to cardiac surgery and higher post-surgery mortality. Actions are required to address these inequalities.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a sustainable obesity prevention programme for preschool children delivered at scale 'HENRY' (Health, Exercise, Nutrition for the Really Young): protocol for the HENRY III cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: One-fifth of children start school already overweight or living with obesity, with rates disproportionately impacting those living in the most deprived areas. Social, environmental and biological factors contribute to excess weight gain and programmes delivered in early years settings aim to support families to navigate these in order to prevent obesity. One of these programmes (Health, Exercise and Nutrition for the Really Young, HENRY) has been delivered in UK community venues (hereon named 'centres') in high deprivation areas since 2008 and aims to help families to provide a healthy start for their preschool children. We aim to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HENRY, including its potential role from a wider systems perspective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, open-labelled, two-group, prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial, with cost-effectiveness analysis, systems-based process evaluation and internal pilot. Primary analysis will compare body mass index (BMI) z-score at 12 months in children (n=984) whose parents have attended HENRY to those who have not attended. Secondary outcomes include parent and staff BMI and waist circumference, parenting efficacy, feeding, eating habits, quality of life, resource use and medium term (3 years) BMI z-scores (child and siblings). 82 centres in ~14 local authority areas will be randomised (1:1) to receive HENRY or continue with standard practice. Intention-to-treat analysis will compare outcomes using mixed effects linear regression. Economic evaluation will estimate a within-trial calculation of cost-per unit change in BMI z-score and longer-term trajectories to determine lifelong cost savings (long-term outcomes). A systems process evaluation will explore whether (and how) implementation of HENRY impacts (and is impacted by) the early years obesity system. An established parent advisory group will support delivery and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the University of York, Health Sciences' Research Governance Committee (HSRGC/2022/537/E). Dissemination includes policy reports, community resources, social media and academic outputs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16529380.

Supporting people with Motor Neuron Disease (MND) to make decisions about gastrostomy feeding tube placement: a survey of UK healthcare professionals' practice and beliefs.

OBJECTIVE: Understand the practice and beliefs of healthcare professionals (HCPs) supporting the decision-making of people with MND (pwMND) about gastrostomy placement, including identifying differences between professions. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey disseminated to HCPs who support the decision-making of pwMND about gastrostomy placement. RESULTS: A total of 139 participants completed the survey including representation from a range of healthcare professions. A third (36/101, 36%) initiated discussions about gastrostomy later in practice than they believed was ideal. In relation to the outcome of declining compared to accepting gastrostomy, participants were more likely to discuss aspiration (80% vs. 68%), choking (76% vs. 58%) and prognosis (36% vs. 22%). Participants believed gastrostomies should be placed after a mean 8.1% weight loss since symptom-onset. More participants favored gastrostomy placement before pwMND presented with respiratory symptoms (45%) compared to onset of dysphagia (11%). Half believed pwMND placed gastrostomies too late. Participants were more likely to 'often'/'always' recommend pwMND to have a gastrostomy (23%) than continue without (7%) or decline (4%) gastrostomy, when believing these were the best option for pwMND. Nurses and dietitians discussed the broadest range of information, while doctors were more likely to discuss mortality risk and prognosis. CONCLUSION: There is variation in HCPs practice and beliefs about initiating discussions, the sharing of information and recommendations, and timing, about gastrostomy placement. The information shared varies by profession and there is evidence of sub-optimal communication between HCPs. Further research is required to understand how these findings may impact on the decision-making of pwMND about gastrostomy.

Recording harms in randomized controlled trials of behavior change interventions: a scoping review and map of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials evaluate diverse interventions. This can include medical interventions such as drugs or surgical procedures, or behavior change interventions (BCIs) that aim to change a habit, belief, or attitude to improve health, for example, healthy eating, psychological wellbeing. Harms are often recorded poorly or inconsistently within randomized controlled trials of BCIs. This scoping review aimed to collate and describe literature on categories, definitions, and mechanisms of harms from BCIs; methods of identifying plausible harms; and recommendations for recording harms. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review was conducted. Three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched. Reference list checking and citation searching were performed. Articles were included if they discussed (1) interventions that aimed to modify behavior, (2) categories or mechanisms of harms, and (3) methods or recommendations for recording harms. All research designs were included. One reviewer reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts; queries were checked with another reviewer. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A thematic map was constructed to summarize the review findings. Harms described from specific BCIs were identified, and examples were selected and summarized. RESULTS: The review included 37 articles. Nineteen of 37 articles contributed to a thematic review. Three articles described categories of harms; categories of harm included physical, psychological, group and social interactions, cultural, equity, opportunity cost, environmental, and economic. Seven articles included mechanisms or underlying factors for harms including feelings of failure leading to shame or stigma, and group interventions enabling knowledge exchange on unhealthy behaviors. Twelve articles provided recommendations for recording harms, including taking a proportionate approach by focusing on the most plausible and important harms, collecting different perspectives on whether harms had occurred (eg, caregivers and family members), and using qualitative research methods to identify harms. One article described a three-step method to identify plausible harms from an intervention, and six articles supported aspects of the method. Eighteen of 37 articles contributed to a review which collated harms arising from specific interventions, for example, a peer support intervention in inflammatory bowel disease caused distressing conversations which might lead to anxiety and confrontation with a possible negative future. CONCLUSION: BCIs can cause harm. This review identified categories and proposed mechanisms of harms, as well as methods and recommendations for identifying and recording harms in BCIs for inclusion in forthcoming recommendations.

Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71978064.

Factors influencing decisions people with motor neuron disease make about gastrostomy placement and ventilation: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: People with motor neuron disease (pwMND) are routinely offered gastrostomy feeding tube placement and (non-invasive and invasive) ventilation to manage the functional decline associated with the disease. This study aimed to synthesise the findings from the qualitative literature to understand how individual, clinical team and organisational factors influence pwMND decisions about these interventions. METHODS: The study design was guided by the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREC) statement. The search of five bibliography databases and an extensive supplementary search strategy identified 27 papers that included qualitative accounts of pwMND, caregivers and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences of making decisions about gastrostomy and ventilation. The findings from each study were included in a thematic synthesis. FINDINGS: Making decisions about interventions is an emotional rather than simply a functional issue for pwMND. The interventions can signal an end to normality, and increasing dependence, where pwMND consider the balance between quality of life and extending survival. Interactions with multiple HCPs and caregivers can influence the process of decision-making and the decisions made. These interactions contribute to the autonomy pwMND are able to exert during decision-making. HCPs can both promote and threaten pwMND perceived agency over decisions through how they approach discussions about these interventions. Though there is uncertainty over the timing of interventions, pwMND who agree to interventions report reaching a tipping point where they accept the need for change. CONCLUSION: Discussion of gastrostomy and ventilation options generate an emotional response in pwMND. Decisions are the consequence of interactions with multiple external agents, including HCPs treading a complex ethical path when trying to improve health outcomes while respecting pwMND right to autonomy. Future decision support interventions that address the emotional response and seek to support autonomy have the potential to enable pwMND to make informed and timely decisions about gastrostomy placement and ventilation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The lead author collaborated with several patient and participant involvement (PPI) groups with regards to the conceptualisation and design of this project. Decisions that have been influenced by discussions with multiple PPI panels include widening the scope of decisions about ventilation in addition to gastrostomy placement and the perceptions of all stakeholders involved (i.e., pwMND, caregivers and HCPs).

Managing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A qualitative interview study with women and healthcare professionals.

AIM: To explore the experiences of women who have had ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and healthcare professionals who care for them. BACKGROUND: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is a side effect of fertility treatment. Little research exists internationally that explores the experiences of women who have had this condition, or the healthcare professionals who manage it. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Eighteen interviews with women who had experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (n = 10) and healthcare professionals (n = 8) in six UK fertility centres. Framework analysis was used. This paper is reported following COREQ guidelines. RESULTS: Women described a range of symptoms and severity, sometimes experiencing worrying physical health problems such as abdominal swelling and shortness of breath. The combination of the symptoms, and their management, on delaying future fertility treatment could cause emotional distress. Healthcare professionals at different centres described variation in practice, which generally involved 'active monitoring' until symptoms became severe, when women would be hospitalised. Women expressed feeling 'left in limbo' while waiting for symptoms to improve or worsen, and described a lack of control during this waiting period. Healthcare professionals felt they provided adequate information about ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its management. This, however, did not align with women's perceptions that information, including potential delays to their fertility treatment, was missing. There was similar mismatch between women's and healthcare professionals' views of decision-making about fertility treatment following ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, including women's concerns about having to make rushed, unplanned decisions about their fertility treatment when they did not feel adequately informed to do so. CONCLUSION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its management can have a significant physical and emotional impact on women, and influence their fertility treatment. Improvements could be made to the information women receive about this condition, its management and its implications for wider fertility treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nurses have the skills and knowledge to support women through the physical and emotional stresses of fertility treatment. Therefore, they are well placed to provide specialist information and support for OHSS and ensure women are fully informed about all aspects of the condition, including how its management might delay fertility treatment.

The role of socioeconomic deprivation in explaining neighborhood and clinic effects in the effectiveness of psychological interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment outcomes are known to vary according to therapist and clinic/organization (therapist effect, clinic effect). Outcomes may also vary according to the neighborhood where a person lives (neighborhood effect), but this has not previously been formally quantified. Evidence suggests that deprivation may contribute to explaining such cluster effects. This study aimed to (a) simultaneously quantify neighborhood, clinic, and therapist effects on intervention effectiveness and (b) determine the extent to which deprivation variables explain neighborhood and clinic effects. METHOD: The study used a retrospective, observational cohort design with a high intensity psychological intervention sample (N = 617,375), and a low intensity (LI) psychological intervention sample (N = 773,675). Samples each included 55 clinics, 9,000-10,000 therapists/practitioners, and over 18,000 neighborhoods in England. Outcomes were postintervention depression and anxiety scores and clinical recovery. Deprivation variables included individual employment status, domains of neighborhood deprivation, and clinic-level mean deprivation. Data were analyzed using cross-classified multilevel models. RESULTS: Unadjusted neighborhood effects of 1%-2% and unadjusted clinic effects of 2%-5% were detected, with proportionally larger effects for LI interventions. After controlling for predictors, adjusted neighborhood effects of 0.0%-0.1% and clinic effects of 1%-2% remained. Deprivation variables were able to explain a significant proportion of the neighborhood effect (80%-90% of neighborhood variance) but not clinic effect. The majority of neighborhood variance could only be explained by a shared effect of baseline severity and socioeconomic deprivation variables. CONCLUSIONS: People in different neighborhoods respond differently to psychological intervention, and this clustering effect was mainly explained by socioeconomic factors. People also respond differently according to the clinic they access, but this could not be completely explained by deprivation in the present study. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. 'Co'approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished. METHODS: Studies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong's seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty four international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of 'co'approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that 'co'approaches improved the management of health conditions. CONCLUSION: Those using 'co'approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of 'co'approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether 'co'approaches produce improved health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020187463 .